A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Council by-election results

Only one by-election last night:

Sitwell Ward, Rotherham MBC. Con hold. Con 1213 (45.5%, +4), Lab 864 (32.4%, -2.2), Ind 252 (9.4%, -2.2), UKIP 241 (9.0%, -3.2), LD 98 (3.7%, +3.7). Swing of 3.1% from Lab to Con since May this year.


Blogger Patrick said...

There are Tories in Rotherham?!

10:42 am, August 06, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously ;-)

Actually, the predecessor ward to this one provided the only Tory (indeed non-Labour) councillor in Rotherham come the mid 90s.

Great LibDem performance!!

11:17 am, August 06, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

only half the voters of last election in this ward

but Tory even in bad years

Issue was getting out Labour vote and they didnt

12:01 pm, August 06, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labour are in a mess and still dwelling in defeat.

On the quite they have such a relief that the Tories got in power, as Labour borrowed up to the hilt to pay for 2 illegal wars and now the borrowing must be cut, at least Labour don't have that unpopular task.

A lot of people out there don't like the cutbacks one bit, but know its got to be done!

2:44 pm, August 06, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only complete drooling "David Icke" style imbeciles think that the Afghan war - whatever you think of it - is "illegal" (whatever that actually means)

Just saying, mate :-)

4:14 pm, August 06, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Legal or illegal these stupid idiotic wars have ruined our economy and are morally wrong.

12:37 pm, August 08, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

the bankers know what to do

record bonuses

while millions face the sack

11:29 pm, August 08, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is amazing how some people rewrite history......

How on earth was it "morally wrong" to take the action we did following Sept 11??

The regime ruling Afghanistan had the perpretators and refused to hand them over. Surely one of the clearest "casus belli" since 1945?

12:21 am, August 09, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your immediately previous contributor demonstrates his own total ignorance in criticising an earlier contributor.

The regime in Afghanistan was not really given the opportunity to hand the perpertatrators/suspects over to a proper international court.

Furthermore, Bush should have been impeached for ignoring the warnings. Clearly, protecting the American people from terrorist attack was not a high priority for America's worst president.

August 6, 2001: Bush Receives Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’

It's a pity Blair couldn't have asked Bush about this rather than kissing his arse!

3:21 pm, August 09, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you certainly won't get me defending Bush - though I hope you aren't dabbling in 9/11 "truthery"...

And it is true that the US waited a month after that to start military action - not letting off nukes the next day as some feared :-)

The real point, though, is that the Taliban were and are bloodthirsty medieval savages who are utterly repellent to every civilised value. Both they and al-Quaeda claim to love death more than life. We should let them have their wish.

12:28 am, August 10, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I said can easily be verified.
I notice though that you have now changed your reasoning for attacking Afghanistan and for blowing innocent Afghani civilians to pieces. Their relatives will mourn them just as much as the relatives of 9/11 dead will mourn their loved ones.

9:22 am, August 10, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't "changed" anything.

9/11 *was* the casus belli, and as I said the US waited a full month before taking military action. The Taliban could easily have handed over Bin Laden in that time, had they wanted to.

But they didn't want to - not least because they agreed with what he did. And that is because they were one of the vilest regimes of the past century. That might not be *the* reason for going to war in Afghanistan - but it is hardly an argument against it, either!

2:28 pm, August 10, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over"


An article worth reading in the context of the current discussion.
The Taliban proposal was rejected out of hand by President Bush.

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama Bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan."

A trial of Bin Laden may well have raised awkward questions about why Bush ignored his CIA Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) dated 6 August 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". He would have risked impeachment (a fate he richly deserved).

Furthermore,what evidence do you have that the Taliban agreed with the 9/11 bombings? If you have such evidence, please share it with us.
Mere assertions are no substitute for facts.

1:47 pm, August 12, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As that report shows, the "offer" was only made AFTER the US had already started military action.

Funny, that ;-)

11:23 pm, August 12, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that the offer was made after the bombing began does not explain at all why it was rejected!

But you may be interested in this:

Wednesday, 12 September, 2001, 11:57 GMT 12:57 UK Bin Laden extradition raised.

"A leading spokesman for Afghanistan's ruling Taleban militia has said it would consider extraditing terror suspect Osama Bin Laden based on US evidence".

Here is the address:


As I have explained before, a trial of Bin Laden is probably the last thing that Bush would want as it would risk exposure of his own negligence and could lead to his impeachment.

2:33 pm, August 13, 2010


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Hit Counters
OfficeDepot Discount